HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.a. Rosemount Crossing-Concept Commercial Planned Unit Development, Steiner DevelopmentCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
City Council Meeting Date: August 2, 2004.
AGENDA ITEM: Case 4 -38 -CON Steiner Development Concept
AGENDA
Commercial Planned Unit Development for
SECTION: New
Rosemount Crossing
Business
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner
r
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution, Location map, Revised Site
Plan, Engineering Memo, PC Minutes, 7 -14 & 6-
22, 04, Proposed Design Features with
photographic examples, Dakota County memo,
APPROVED BY:
Building Elevations, Existing Conditions Plan,
Property Description, Narrative, Correspondence,
Memos, Examples of other ALDI locations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the concept commercial planned unit development
for Rosemount Crossing with conditions
ACTION:
ISSUE
The applicant, Steiner Development has presented a concept for a commercial planned unit
development on the northwest corner of Highway 3 and County Road 42. The development
is anchored by the 15,000 sq. ft. ALDI Grocery, in the southwest corner of the site along
County Road 42. The concept has been revised in response to staff recommendations and
the Planning Commission public hearing process. The Plan currently before the Council is a
modified version of what was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The concept now
includes four buildings with a total square footage of 48,100 sq. ft.
Building Description/ use Square Footage Location
Grocery (ALDI) 15,000 sq. ft. Southwest corner
Retail — Multiple tenant 22,400 sq. ft. Northwest corner, north of grocery
Restaurant 6,500 sq. ft. Northeast corner, next to STH 3
Restaurant (Coffee franchise) 4,200 sq. ft. Southeast corner
Significant plan revisions that have occurred through the process include:
• Re- alignment of Camero Lane and Cambrian Avenues into a loop system separated
from the development access and Highway 3.
• Additional land has been set -aside for right -of -way dedication to Dakota County for
County Road 42.
Z
6uiwoo„ aql palleo uaaq 6uol seq (Aenn jo- jg6!a/sjaaajs bulpnloui) a }!s 9aoe -6 VL Jueoen agl
aNnousNove
•eoueu!pio w!aajui ssaooid buluueld umolumop aql Aq peAelep uaaq Apeeile aneg Aegj
legs pue uoilonalsuoo aajuim bu!oel aje Aegj #eqj Joel eqj jo jgbil ui sonssi asagj anlosaa 01
aadolanap 941 qj!M �QOM 016u!II!M si }}ejS •91!s aqj 01 s96uego u61sap ainup -Isel of esuodsai
u! s! s!ql •spiepuels buiNied Iewiou ql!m aouewaojuoo aa!nbaa oI L 6# uo!I!puoo a pappe seq
}}els `uoil!ppe ul •aoumwoped 6uldeospuel pue o!laglsee uodn paseq pa jdns si aaagj, golgnn
job. `slepejew 6u!pl!nq paa!nbaa 01 anllelaa Al!l!q!xelj Aue iseb6ns }ou p!p abenbuel Ieuibuo
aql •slepejew 6u!pl!nq aol aoueildwoo aoueu!pao buluJaouoo 6# uolI!puoo papuawwooaJ
}o aben6uel aqj Appow of }}els peldwad aneq aadolanap aq} qj!m suolssnos!p luanbesgnS
, (Iol buiMied eqj pue eaae Noegjes uja}som eqj w) Apedoid a}e n!ad eqj uo wel
96euleap 91en!ad eqj aol Apo aql ql.!m lueweejbe ue olui jajua aadolanap eqj legl sa ilnbei -
1I uo!Iipuoo 941 01 uoljea!l!pow a ql!M u0113e papuauawooaa 9416u!now `u0113e N001
uolss!wwoo aql `ewll jegj }y •I!ounoo Apo eqj of uoilepuewwooei a aoj Allua!ogns pasinaa
uaaq Apeaale peq ueld eqj jegl 6ulleo!pu! papuodsaa ..4elS •suo!s!naJ aadolanap aqj nnalnW
of uoljoe bullgel paaaplsuoo saauolsslwwoo eql •suoll!puoo pale #s Alsnolnaad of bulpuodsei
aadolanap aqj woaJ s}uawwoo pan!aoaa saauolss!wwoC aql `6u!aeeq ollgnd puooes aql }y
'shells Ielluep!saa eqj uo joedwi pue 9 ael 6 NbllPeaH
•oes- op -lno e olu! (anuany ueljgweo pue) aue oaaweo uanj of amsep eql
- shoals le!luep!sai eqj uo #oedw! oijjeal
•bulpoolj jol lelluelod aqj pue 6ulpuod Jajem waojS •
:aae pauolluaw suieouoo Aiewud
aqj •6u!aeeq ollgnd eqj buljnp "ods sjuaplsaa uanas `s6ulaeeq oAq aqj jo esinoo aqj aano
•uo!jejedo jo sinoq pue ajols eqj
o} sa Jan!lap `welsAs aalem w.iols punoa6aapun aql `og}eal uelalseped `6uiNied peddeolpueq
`ssaooe al!s jo uo!}eueldxe aagljnj pa}senbei saauo!ssiwwoo eql `Alle!l!uI �uawdolanap
eqj aol sbu!jeeq o!lgnd pelonpuoo uo!sslwwoo 6u!uueld eqj `t `t � AIn f pue ZZ aunr up
SJNIMV3H onand NOISSIWWOa JNINNVId
`paseaaoui a6elool ejenbs 6u!AI!nq «dogs eejjoo,,
941 pue onn4 of eejq} wojj pebuego uaaq seq £ AmH 6uole sbuipl!nq jo jagwnu aql
• }
eq} 10 aauaoo isampou eqj ui peulgwoo uaaq aneq s6ulpl nq llelai lu eldlllnw omjL
•seeie mlem -ssoao leuialru! bu!}eo!pu! `pajg6!Ig6!q uaaq seq welsAs ue!jlseped aql
- AeM- to -lg61a g Aemgb'H
9416uole 6ulpulmlo peelsul s6u!pl!nq eqj ueampq pa}eool mou aaols Aaaooj6
aqj 01 anlap ss000e Aiew!ad aqj ql!m `paz!leuialu! aaow mou si ujoped uo!lelnojio eql
- slueuel pue jueo!ldde eqj jo Al!l!q!suodsaa eqj eq pinom }eqj weiboid eoueuelulew
e saa!nbei welsAs eq 1 •Ino peNjom eq of paeu sl!elep leu!j `gbnoq}Ie welsAs
abeaols punoibiapun ue qj!m elge:polwoo s! juaw:pedep 6u!aaeu!6ue eql `ldaouoo ul
•u6rsap a }is jua!o!}}a aaow 6u! }el!I!oej sjol bu!Naed eqj aapun aq pinom welsAs ebeu!eap
punoa6aapun eql •slinen a6euieap punoa6aapun sezign jegj uo!lnlos OAIIeua91Ie ue Aq
peoeldaa uaaq seq juawdolanap 941 10 a6pa ISOM 941 uo puod aa}em -waols a6jel eql
f
Soon Site ", having been previously approved for a retail strip development in 1988. That
project never materialized, possibly because of a prohibition by Dakota County for direct
access to County Road 42.
The property is zoned C-4, General Commercial, consistent with the Rosemount 2020
Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant: Steiner Development, Inc.
Property Owner(s): Rosemount Realty Partners, LLC — Leo Lund
Location: Northwest corner of STH 3 / S. Robert Trail and County Road 42.
Area in Acres: 7.19
Total sq. ft.: 48,100 sq. ft. as revised
Parking spaces 240
Planning Comm. Action: Recommendation of Approval (5 -0)
SUMMARY'
The concept plan for the Commercial Planned Unit Development depicts development of a
15,000 sq. ft. grocery store and three other retail or restaurant buildings. A 22,400 square
foot building is located north of the grocery (ALDI's) structure located in the northwest corner
of the site. Two smaller single -use buildings are located between highway 3 and the main
access through the centralized parking area. The proposed uses comply with the current
zoning and land use designation for the property.
ALDI Inc. of West Burlington, Iowa would lease the grocery store on the southerly portion of
the site adjacent to County Road 42. Steiner Development would own the entire site, leasing
to other potential tenants. Possible tenants include a national brand coffee franchise, hair
salon and a letter if intend has been received from a restaurant. The scale of this
development is roughly equivalent to one of the commercial blocks on the south side of
County Road 42, Shannon Parkway to Crestone Avenue or Claret to Cimmaron Avenue.
PROCESS
The applicant has requested Planned Unit Development, which is appropriate for multiple
buildings and a site that will eventually be subdivided. In addition, variances to several
commercial standards are apparent in the plan. The variances include building and parking
lot setback reductions, and building materials. The PUD process would be the appropriate
vehicle to gain approval of these ordinance inconsistencies. There may be, in some cases,
rationale to support some of the variances, particularly as they relate to building setbacks to
have the site provide an adequate transition between the suburban commercial area along
County Road 42 and the more pedestrian orientation of the Highway 3 downtown business
area. There are also several instances in which the plan may depend on variances in
response to Dakota County requirements for additional right -of -way, or in accommodating
drive- though circulation around buildings along Highway 3. However, staff support for the
variances is limited and not all proposed variances under the current submitted plan are
supported. The Planning Commission and the City Council will have to decide if the
variances are justified, and that the PUD offers acceptable concessions in return.
3
6uipi!nq �ueq ayl yl!nn buole paleu!w!le uaaq aney Mueq '}} 'bs 000
e 10 uo!lonpoalui ayl wojl 6u!llnsaa su.iaoum sno!naad •uollnq!als!p 6u!Naed pezlue6aoaa ayl
yl!nn pantos uaaq aney lumnelsaa •ll 'bs 00g`g ayl to uo!lelos! agl Inoge su.iaouoo snoinaad
'(aalloo) lumnelsai •ll 'bs 00Z`t ayl to ylaou dool ssaooe kewad aul yl!nn sloauuooaa
pue lol 6u!Maed ayl sl!lds alno.i ssaooe Monal ayl '6u!pl!nq dijls I!elaj ay} pu!gaq eps
941 10 aauaoo lsannglaou ayl ui eaae punoae -wnl -!was a s! ajayl 'aaol.s tiaOOa6 941 10 aauaoO
lsanny OU ayl u! pap!noid sr sloop bu!peol a ajagnn aeaa ayl of ssaooe aowas jol snnolle deb
s!yl 6uipl!nq dljls 1!elaj pue /G9ooa6 eqj ueeNgeq deb a le peu!gwoo aie bu!ppq dljls I!elei
- ll 'bs 00VZZ ayl pue aaOIs Aa93oa6 ayl aol ssaooe ao!naaS 'a ayl ss000e ioyoue tiaooa6
IQ ayl of ssaooe o!lleal alts -ssoao 6u!lowoad to anlloafgo ayl gl!nn `lua!O!lla s! uollelnoalo
aqj `AjjeaauaE •sabpa Jal.no ayl uo bu!a.m000 uO!leinoa!o paleu6!sap gl!nn lol buiNied
pajeys 96aei ayl sloauum `anuany ue!agweo luaaano ayl `£ Aenny6!H woal ssaooe al!S
•a6pa uaaylaou m
agl 6uole buluaaaos col algel!ene si c oeds lua!o!llns leyl
alnsua of 96uelleyo el!s sno!naad a Saos �(la6ael `sbulpl!ng lsann pue ylaou ayl bulu!gwoo
uo!s!nW lsalel ayl •6u!deospuel col elgel!ene coeds ayl says!u!w!p I!eal pue luawaned ayj
`laails ayl col paleoipap s! Aeon- jo- l.y6!a aouO •buuaj.nq adeospuel col coeds wnw!ldo ueyj
ssal u! lInsai 11!nn uo!lnlos ayl `aanannOH •l}els to uo!u!do ayl ui uollnlos lseq ayl si anuany
uelagweO pue aue oaaweO uaan4eq uo!loauuoo laaals ayl •Z'b peon fqunoo ao slaaals
le!luap!saa leool of ssaooe loaa!p ou seq luawdolanap aql 'uO!lepuawwooaa s,aoloaa!Q
uo!jeaaoa� pue sNJed ayl of asuodsai UI pap!noid uaaq seq N ied playwO o} uOiloauuoo
Heil a uo!j!ppe ul •al!s lelaaawwoo 941 01 ssaooe aWl se AIan!snloxa suo!lounl pue ylaou
ay} of pooyaogy6!au Ieiluap!saa ay} woal peloauuoos!p uaaq osle seq E Aenny6!y of uolloauuoO
anuany ue!jgweo a41 'aue oaaweO „6u!gslull„ snyl `pea o!lgnd a e!n anuany ue!agweo
of aue- oaaweo loauuoo of uo!lowip llels of spuodsa }deouoo pas!nW agl *al!s ay} 10 aauaoO
lseaylJOu ayl u! `g Aenny6!H wOjl ssaooe anuany ue!agwe0 6ulls!xe ay} of pel!w!l si al!s aul
Nouviflabla v SS3a3v
'saipuewe aps pasodoid lO saldwexe olydeibologd
to aagwnu a pap!noid seq l.ueo!Idde eql `asuodsaa ul osly I!elap leuoilippe co buibin
llels of asuodsa ui pappe uaaq seq £ Aenng6!H uo Mlennap!s ayl 01 bullOOMOO Nlennap!s
V '6u!deospuel yl!nn bullees aoopino awooeq pinonn oiled ayl leyl pawnsaad s! 11 - Aenn
10-101i g Aenny6!H aql pue lueanelsaa ayl uaannlaq unnoys si oiled y - Aeon- jo-jg6!a £ Aenny6!y
ayl of 1991 aaayl- Aluannl lnoge pue `Aenn- jo -jgf)u anuany ue!agweO ayj jo aauaoo lseaglaou
ayl wal laal uaall!j lnoge palua!ao jueinelsai •ll. •bs 009`g ayl yl!nn papuodsaa seq aadolanap
ayl •E Aenng6!y 6uole walled unnolunnop leuo!l!peil ayl of Zt, peoU Alunoo 6uole Ieloaawwoo
to uaalled uegjngns aql woal uo!llsueal a se anaas p1noo el!s ayl legl p9ls966ns seq .jjelS
- Ie!ju9p!s9U of IepiewwoO woal uo l!sueal asn puel ayl col Alleaaua6 pue
`Alleomoads sloop 6u!peol col pe4pbai aq Minn bu!uaajoS -sasn Ie!luappai agl of pasodxe
pue of isasolo sbu!ppq aaagl 941 10 suolJenala uaajsann ayl uo paleOOl ace seWe 901AJ a yl
`ujnlaa u! lnq `sep!s ylaou pue isann ayl uo sasn Ie!luap!saj ay} woal Aenne sly6!l pue 6uiNjed
ayl uaaaOs Ilp s6u!pl!nq ayl to uo!lelualao agl •g Aenny6!H of do Moeq sbu!ppq aallews oho
ayl •6u!�aed eql piennol sp.iennui ao lsee 6upel `aps ayl jo 96pa jalno ayl 6u!a sbuippq ayl
N011V IN31110 JNIaiins aNV NOIIVZINVJ210 311S
r
There is also an issue raised by the County regarding development of the site. The County
Highway 42 Corridor Study prepared by Dakota County and the draft Dakota County 2025
Transportation Plan identify the need for a future interchange overpass at the intersection of
TH 3 and CSAH 42. The concept for this interchange is a folded diamond design with CSAH
42 crossing over TH 3 and the railroad tracks and the loop ramps being located on the west
side of TH 3. As the City would be responsible for a portion of the right -of -way acquisition
cost, consideration should be given to preserving adequate right -of -way for the future. The
proposed dedication does address some of the future right -of -way need, however, it is
unclear if additional right -of -way may be necessary. The uncertainty stems from the County
and State, who have not done and work on the potential interchange and have not provided
any funding for planning or construction.
PARKING
The latest revision provides parking based upon 5 spaces provided per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross
floor area. The required restaurant parking is bused upon the number of seats, which is
currently unknown.
Building / Use Spaces provided Requirement Comments
Grocery Store 97 (shared) 75 spaces Shared with 4,200 sq. ft. Rest.
Retail 22,400 sq. ft. 91 (shared') 112 spaces Add. employee parking in rear
Rest. 6,500 sq. ft. 38 (shared) 1/3 seats
Rest. 4,200 sq. ft. 17 1/3 seats Shares with grocery _
In summary, 243 spaces are provided, which seems barely sufficient. The number of seats
provided in the restaurants is unknown but approximately 60 spaces are availablefor
restaurant parking east of the primary access lane. Therefore a total of 180 seats would be
permissible based upon available parking between the two restaurants. If the 6,500 sq. ft.
restaurant converted to other retail uses, the provided parking would be more than sufficient
at a rate of almost 6 per 1000 sq. ft. The 4,200 sq. ft. restaurant (Coffee) building will need
to share some of the grocery parking, but the Grocery use can spare 22 spaces based upon
standards. The uses are also considered complementary.
There is some concern about the parking available for the 22,400 sq. ft. retail strip building.
The calculated parking deficit is 21 spaces. Parking has been designated in the rear of the
building, presumably for employees, but there still is a parking shortage based upon
ordinancecritera.. The 22,400 sq. ft. is a gross- square foot number that could be reduced
after factoring in mechanical and rest rooms.
A condition has been added to the resolution, requiring conformance with normal parking
standards. During the final master development plan review the developer will either need to
provide additional parking, reduce the total square footage of the development, commit to
specific uses that may reduce the need for parking or provide a shared parking plan that
would show that the complementary uses reduces the total amount of parking necessary for
the entire site. Any reduction would have to be supported with detailed analysis of the uses,
5
and a break -down of the multiple- tenant building to arrive at a "net parking requirement.
ARCHITECTURE
The design character of the buildings has demonstrated some appeal with varying entrance
features. Building entry areas are accented with awnings, covered porticos or vertical
'accents. Vertical columns break up the horizontal massing of the elevations. The building
materials do include rock -faced block on the western elevation facing the residential district
and as an accent on the parking lot side. - Rock -face block CMU (concrete masonry unit)
would have to be accepted as part of the PUD in variance to current commercial ordinance
standards. , This may be acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council if the
materials on the walls facing public street right -of -way and parking does meet current
standards and can be demonstrated to accomplish aesthetic goals of compatibility with the
balance of the buildings. This is consistent with the recommendations being formulated by
the Downtown Redevelopment Committee concerning building materials. Other concessions
may, in the balance, give the Commission and Council incentives for considering materials
and setback standards. Examples include: site amenities that exceed the norm for
pedestrian systems and outdoor plaza and seating in connection with a restaurant that is a
priority goal for the Community. Staff also feels that effective landscape buffering required
adjacent to residential uses may help justify the use of alternative materials. Integrated
design is the key.
General Commercial Zoning Standards
The following highlights the more applicable General Commercial design standards.
Setbacks Front, Side, Rear Comments
Buildings 30 ft. 10 ft.* 10 ft.* *30 ft. min. next to residential
Parking 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.
Identified variances:
• Restaurant — 6,500 sq. ft. Building setbacks of 15 feet to Cambrian Ave. and 23 feet to
South Robert Trail.
• Grocery 15,000 sq. ft Building is setback 20 feet from future County Road 42 ROW.
• Parking lot/ drives include:
0 6,500 sq. ft. Restaurant -15 feet with Highway 3 ROW, 15 feet with Cambrian
Ave. ROW
o Drive - through lane Restaurant — 4,200 sq. ft. (Coffee) setback of 10 feet.
o Grocery parking along future County Road 42 ROW setback is 10 feet.
Staff has indicated that some variances could be supported, especially if the overall site
design supported a traditional pedestrian oriented commercial character along the Highway 3
corridor. The revised plan has reduced the number and magnitude of variances required.
The plan still exhibits a suburban character along the Highway 3 right -of -way. Landscaped
setbacks will still be needed to mitigate headlight glare and parking movements from the
south -bound Highway 3 traffic. The grocery parking along the future County Road 42 right-
of-way line has bee adjusted allowing ten feet for boulevard tree plantings and space for
utilities beyond the future right -of -way.
6
L
'Bulppq yelaa 'y bs 00f eyl joaawoo lseagpou eyl
pue AeM jo -jgAu paleolpap eq 11!m letp dool BLgoauuoo aue- w9weD y anuan y
ueugweo eW `et ly Apedoid aalno ayl ueemleq coeds elgellene ayl ul pagnbaa
eq llegs Buuaynq adeospuel an►sualul •suQponpaa )loeglas pelsenbei ugM
paloauuoo seaae ulyl!m slueweimbei adeospuel lewaou joj Molle Ism ueld eq L
- ells ayl uo samleai leinleu lueo!uB/s Bt lgslxe -cad ou we ejegL - slueweimbaa
preA aa�ynq adeospuel aoj molle of s)loeglas lewaou slaew veld ldewo0 eyl
•juawdolanaa i!un
pauueld gbnojgl saouepeA 10 bullumb eqj luejjenn of seinjeal leinjeu jo uo!lemosajd
lelluelsgns a saouap!Aa pue coeds undo elgeesn ;uapgns sap!Aoid ueld aql .e
- I!ounoo aql of sbulpu
sI! paemiol pue snnoilo} se pug Isnw uo!ss!wwoo 6uluue'ld aye `ueld Ideouoo aqj 6ulAoidde ul
1N3WdO713A3a 1lNn a3NMd71d MO=1 SOWNW
- 96eub s pue s1lennap!s `6uiNjed '6uilgbil uo snool spjepuels jay }O
. seaje 6upped ui jgBiaq clod wnwlxew eqj
se ': oti jo uoijeo!poods sau!1ap!n0 Iejnjoaj!gojd aqj qpm juals!suooul s! slgl - pils!p jo esn
lellueplsaj a 101991 001 ulgl!nn 1 oz pue 1991 o£ 016u1jg61l iolaa�xa 10 jg61aq eqj slopsaj
�Ileo.I!oeds eoueu!pjo bu!uoz agl lnq `spjepuels 6u!�y6 algeoildde j aagwnu a aje ajagl
u!lq !
Mo2j peoj eqj 6uole 6u!oeds •:q og jo uoijejoadxe wnwiu!w aqj l saajj
pjenalnoq 6u!Iepoww000e jol apew aq ileys suolslAojd Zt peon{ fi4uno0 jol Henn jo -jg6p
ejnlnl eqj pue £ H1S 6uole sa6pe jol 6unljed aqj jol pajap!suoo aq 01 s1 aoueuen peglas all
•slopsip lelluepisaj lie 01 juaoefpe paj!nbaa si pjeA- ja_.nq pedeospuel ep!nn •:4
0£ d 'sjopslp lepap!saj of jxau paimbaj s! 6uldeospuel 6uu9}4nq `AIjse •jajawpod 6uipi!nq
jo 1991 ual jad gnjgs auo uodn paseq aje sluawajlnbei 6uilueld uollepunoj `se6eluojl.
joeils 6uole 6upeds •:} 05 wnwlxew pue aps aqj to eaje aqj uodn paseq si saajj jo jegwnu
paj!nbei aq 1 •paj nbej aje s6ugueld bu!uaajos pue Ajaggnaqs uoilepunol `seeil pjen9lno8
u! eospue
ueld juawdolanap jajseW
and leu!l aql qpm paj!nbaj ag Il!nn sbu!ppg die col }uawleeil aoua�xe eqj jo juawauilaj jeq:pn j
- 6ulpunoj6 oilaglsee awos 6u!p!Aojd `6uipl!nq aq} jo aseq eqj olui palej6alui aq ueo
�oolg peoel -Now `ilem sy -sasodjnd buluaajos jol padeospuel Algbnojoyl pue algljedwoo
AIleoileq }sae woo sllenn ay} jo aoueleq eqj 1eq} palejlsuowep aq pinoo j! pue `sselb 6ulpnloxe
(Ju91eA!nbe jo) Nopq %001 ejem Aenn jo -jg6lj o!lgnd pue 6uiNjed eqj buloel seoe}ins Ilene
941 J! saoue!jeA:poddns pinoo jjejS •spjepuels buluoz juajjno aapun algeld000e aq jou pinonn
sau!lap!nE) leinjoappiV pa:4!wgns jadolanap 941 u1 of papnile se slaued lejew !ejn}oappie
pue 000njs `Noolq 919anu00 aAIJejooaQ '}ualeAlnbe ue jo Now `euols lejnjeu epniou!
seoelins 6ulu!ewaj aqJ JOI saA!jeuaajiy - No!jq eq Ilegs seoejjns IleM Ile jo %05 jo wnw!u!w b
slepajew buippng
t
8
•uBlsep
lieaano eqj bulloedwl Inogl!m pegslidw000e eq Aew suoisinaa papuawwooaa 94j 10 JuaJxa 941
.}deouoo ueld eqj
:poddns mou ueo gels `senss{ ubisep a }is jueo!pubis jo uollnlosai eqj gj!AA '4:Pou pue Is9m 94l
of sapedoid leilueppej eqj 6uiuiofpe paysildw000e aq ll!m 6uiaa}}nq moo pue asn jueinelsei
eql RM pale oosse }e4l Alielnoi:ped `saipuewe aps leuoilippe of pie/vuoj fool pinom gels
'Iueanelsaa . :4 - bs 00919 eqj ueyj aay}o ` „sluawaiinbei aoueuipio bias aapun elq!ssod sl uegl
luawuoainua buiddoys ja}}aq a sapinoid„ ueld ayl }eqj 6uipug paiinbei ayl :poddns of jdaouoo
and 94j eln paaajo sl 91:4l1 w(laniJeaedwo - 6uilgbll pue slelialew bulppq aoj eouewao} wad
wnwiuiw ueyj ssel eleoonpe }e4l sauijapinO leinloel!goay eqj jo Ino 6upoo su.iaouoo a94jo
pue Aou9lo4op builaed lelluelod aouiw a `saoueljen Noegjes uiewai aaayl *ueld ldeouoo
eqj burpoddns woaj pe6einoosip Alsnoinaad jegj sloiguoo Isa6ael 94j Jo Isow sanlosaa
ueld ails eqj ui paloldep se }deouoo a41 •suaaouoo paijlluepi Alsnoinaad sgels of asuodsai
ul 'papinoad ueaq se4 uoi}ewaojui leuoiIlppe pue pasinaJ ueaq sey lesodoid Ideouoo 941
NoismONOO
•sesn lei ;uepsaa
jueoe/pe eq4 Bumeens aoj Buideospuel jueoy!ufiis ep!noid pue seg!uewe
axis /e iewwoo {euollippe epinoid q pegnbei aq yeys ueld luewdoleAep
leuy eyl 'waned uejulsoped eqj eowojuiaa q Aiesseoeu si pelemnba
.wo waned .yoiaq Lg!m welsAs ueu;seped aye jo uoi�ajBe ;uI - aj!s ay; u W!m
sduj fuiddoys elG�glnw jo Buiuigwoo ayI elowoid gym eaae &gvied uowwoo aye
IuWe Jesse/ a of •juewdoleAep Buwssoao junowesod eyl se Clem se elogm e
se Alin eqj aoj }uawuonnue Buiddoys pue BLq)poM `fiu►ny jepeq a ap!noid p/nonn
`ueld eyl jo ped aayjo Aue ueW aaow pue younoo Ago eyl jo leofi a si juewnelsaa
elAf s Alpej aoilves -llnj a jo juewdo/anaa - pe ne;saw - y 'bs 009`9 aye
jo uoisinowd aye sl ueld eyl anoidde of Ago eyl aoj ani;uaoui;ueoyiuAis }sow ayl
- slueweimbai eoueu pao pals aapun algissod si ueyj Iuawuoainua
buiddoys io `6uiNaoM `6uinll aa:}aq a apinoid lllM pue anljeaao aaow si ueld 9 41 _'p
, saipedoad fiuipunoams eqj uo juewdoleAep ay; jo s;oa4e /eluawlalap
lRquejod aye aa;unoo lym sesn leguepsed pue leyoaawwoo ueemleq uoilisuea}
ayl e}e4ipw q spaeA Je4nq edeospue/ pegnbaa aye jo uo sinord pue suQpoeuuoo
paa is enuany ueugweo T aue7 oaaweD eW jo uQgnjosaa `ueld jueweBeuew
aajeMwaojS anisuayajdwoo aye ql!m eouewaojuoo ui speeu afiewols
je�eM two }s a ;epoww000e of pue spaepuels Ago q 6Lgpa000e sjol &►vied aye
y;eeueq we ;sAs juaw eBeuew aajem waols eqj jo eoueuelgtew pue uajoru�suoo
•saipedowd 6uipunoaans of lejuewiajap eq jou llp luewdofanap pasodoid aq 1 •o
- ua /d anisue yaadwoo
;unowasod OZOZ aye ui asn leioaawwoo aoj paleufiisep sp fpadoid ayl
'veld anlsuagaidwoo eqj jo juejul eqj ql!m seildwoo Ueld a41 'q
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2004 -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
CONCEPT PLAN FOR ROSEMOUNT CROSSING
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from Steiner Development, Incorporated, requesting a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Concept Plan for the Rosemount Crossing, legally described as:
Marian Terrace excepting therefrom that part now platted as Marian Terrace Replat and also excepting
therefrom that part now platted as Marian Terrace Replat 2 °d Addition, according to the plat thereof on
file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County of Dakota and State of
Minnesota.
Together that portion of public lands vacated in Document No. 11942 filed June 21, 1955, which
accrue to subject premises.
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2004, the applicant submitted a revised site plan that responded to
some staff identified concerns, whereupon the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
continued the public hearing for the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to July 14, 2004 to
provide sufficient time to review the revised plans; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2004 the applicant submitted another revised PUD Concept Plan for the
project renamed Rosemount Crossing addressing additional concerns.
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised concept PUD for
Rosemount Crossing and received comments at the continued public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council
approve the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to
conditions; and
WHEREAS, August 2 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission's recommendation, the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for
Rosemount Crossing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to:
I . Approval of the Dakota County Plat Commission including provision of
RESOLUTION 2004 -
additional right -of -way for County Road 42.
2. Approval of the Minnesota Department of Transportation relative to access to
State Trunk Highway 3.
3. Provision of landscape buffering consistent with applicable zoning standards in all
setback areas separating buildings, parking or loading areas from adjacent
residential uses. Loading docks not screened by buildings shall be enclosed by a
masonry wall consistent with building materials to screen semi truck parking and
maneuvering space consistent with Standards specified in Section 8 of the Zoning
Ordinance subject to Staff review and approval.
4. The 8 ft. wide bituminous trail linking Camfield Park at the northwest corner of
the site through to the State Trunk Highway 3 right -of -way is subject to approval
by the Parks and Recreation Director.
5. Setback variances will be considered for the restaurants only with the inclusion of
site amenities supporting outdoor seating and service. Amenities shall include
(but not be limited to) paved terraces with textured concrete or brick pavers,
wrought iron fencing with masonry piers, and landscaping including significant
boulevard trees for shaded seating.
6. Setback variances will be considered for the driveway / parking areas only if
required landscaping and drainage is accommodated on the perimeter of the site
including boulevard trees spaced at a maximum of 50 feet. Specifically, the zero-
lot-lined parking lot setback on the future County Road 42 right -of -way line is not
supported under any circumstances. This area shall be redesigned with parking
shifted to the north to maintain a green space wide enough for required green
space and plantings including boulevard trees.
7. The bank / retail site shall be redesigned to improve the traffic flow connected
with the drive - through to solve vehicular and pedestrian conflicts.
8. Sidewalks intersecting with driveways shall emphasize the pedestrian crossings
with :pavement detail including either textured concrete or brick pavers.
9. In any case were the attached Architectural Guidelines conflict with zoning
standards for lighting and signs, the zoning standards shall apply. The Planning
Commission may support integration of alternative materials such as rock -faced
block and variances to building material standards for wall surfaces not facing
rights-of-way, or public parking areas if screened in accordance with buffer yard
expectations and the Applicant can demonstrate acceptable alternatives that
provide consistency with color, texture and pattern. A majority of all wall
surfaces facing public rights -of -way and public parking shall be constructed of
brick or equivalent.
10. The first phase of site development shall include the 6,500 sq. ft. restaurant.
11. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer relative to circulation,
driveways, drainage, grading, infrastructure, easements, storm water facilities,
utilities and specifically the following:
A. Cambrian Avenue at the intersection of TH 3 shall be widened to
2
RESOLUTION 2004 -
provide a 3 -lane section to accommodate a left turn lane to northbound
TH 3.
B. The developer / property owner shall enter into an agreement with the
City for use of public right -of -way for aprivate drainage system. All
maintenance of the drainage system will be the responsibility of the
developer / property owner.
C. The orientation of the drive - through area for the bank/retail site should
be revised to eliminate potential circulation problems and conflicts
with the proposed parking stalls and trash area for the restaurant site
located in the northeast corner of the development.
D. The developer has indicated a desire to utilize an underground
stormwater management system. To date, no specific details for the
system have been provided. In concept, this proposal could be feasible
with the following conditions:
a. City of Rosemount Stormwater Management requirements are
met.
b. Maintenance, repair and replacement agreements with securities
will be required.
12. Conformance with the ordinance requirements for Preliminary Plat L PUD
Final Development Plan and Platting.
13. Incorporation of Recommendations from the Parks and Recreation
Commission for Park Dedication in the amount of $64,710 based upon the
current fee resolution.
14. Provision of space available for a downtown entry monument on the
northwest corner adjacent to the intersection of rights -of -way for CASH
42 and STH 3 that does not conflict with sight- triangle criteria.
15. A sign plan shall be required for consistency of wall signs and placement
of ground/pylon and monument signs. No variances from applicable sign
ordinances have been identified.
16. Approval of the Concept Plan does not guarantee the total number of buildings
or sizes of buildings provided on the plan.
17. Compliance with the minimum number of off - street parking as specified in
Section 8. 1.11 Off - Street Parking Requirements, or plan revisions with
reductions in building size to achieve the standard. The applicant may prepare
a shared parking study assess whether the City will accept a reduction in the
amount of parking provided below the standard. Complementary uses may be
considered only on the basis of non - overlapping parking demand.
ADOPTED this second day of August, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
3
RESOLUTION 2004 -
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
4
ARCHITECTURAL
CONSORTIUM L.L.C,
---_____ — aoi NOM nub saw,san 3m aiz�3a553o
�._ - - -- — MMnpF00., MN.fi510t Fax 613-088 8 8 5 0
-------------- - - - - -- Steiner
`` --- -- Development Inc.
r PATIO
\ LJfll
REST
6.500 SF
3 RETAII.
22.400 SF / /
l L_ /
O
lin
/F
PATIO
TRUC
- .PATIO � 5 S
YC ROSEMOUNT
CROSSING
—S PATIO STEWER
' DEVELOPMENT
����� / ,
GROCERY �� -� I I I I I lJ i e
.13,000 SF
o � / �3 ROSEMOUNT, MIN
111111 F7
Y , / ,Q� 46,100 SF TOTAL SITE PLAN
' POND i AT 243 $TALLS
5.0 / 1000 RATIO OPTION L
4
SCALE: I « z 40 : -
— — -- - - -- --- ----
------ - - -- - --
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- tee., ea
C.S.A.H. NO. 42 .
1150TH STREET WEST 1
0 1TExPLAN i - -
A1.OL
xX
Architectural Consortium, LLC 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
CC; Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator
Rick Pearson, City Planner
Jason Lindahl, Assistant City Planner
Dan Schultz, Parks & Recreation Director
FROM: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer
DATE: July 8, 2004
RE: Concept Plan Review Comments for Rosemount Crossing — Steiner
Development
Upon review of the concept plan for Rosemount Crossing - Steiner Development dated June 30,
2004, the following comments are offered;
1. The proposed access to the site from Cambrian Avenue appears to be acceptable. It "
should be noted that Cambrian Avenue at the intersection of TH 3 will need to be
widened to provide a 3 -lane section to accommodate a left turn lane to northbound TH 3.
As previously discussed, the existing public right -of -way should be preserved to
accommodate future redevelopment within the downtown area. Approvals for this
project should include a condition that dictates that snow removal on Cambrian Avenue
shall be the responsibility of the developer.
2. With regards to the proposed parking lot layout and circulation pattern, the orientation of
the drive - through area for the bank/retail site should be revised to eliminate potential
circulation problems and conflicts with the proposed parking stalls and trash area for the
restaurant site located in the northeast corner of the development.
3. The developer has indicated a desire to utilize an underground stormwater management
system. To date, no specific details for the system have been provided. In concept, this
proposal could be feasible with the following conditions:
a. City of Rosemount Stormwater Management requirements are met.
b. Maintenance, repair and replacement agreements with securities will be required.
4. The County Highway 42 Corridor Study prepared by Dakota County and the draft Dakota
County 2025 Transportation Plan identify the need for a future interchange overpass at
the intersection of TH 3 and CSAH 42. The concept for this interchange is a folded
diamond design with CSAH 42 crossing over TH 3 and the railroad tracks and the loop
ramps being located on the west side of TH 3. As the City would be responsible for a
portion of the right -of -way acquisition cost, consideration should be given to preserving
adequate right -of -way for the future.
Should you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
CADocuments and SettingsV"Eocal SettingsWemporary Internet Files \OLK2\ 070804 .klmemo.rosemountcrossing.doc
LANDSCAPE ELFFER - ..
1 2 TRASH /
21. GAS RETAII. /
10,000 SF Cq
AN "�!'F
- -- z
H d d
?RASH i�i�
REST
6,500 SF
70 CARS -
its CARS
TRASH _
RETAIL
12,000 SF
I1 Z 6
d 4 BANK/RETAIL
4,000 SF
g
1 6
106 CARS - REST
4
3,200S
s.
GROCERY
15.000 SF
a�
6
Jr r
50,700 SF TOTAL
271 STALLS
' POND o 5.311000 RATIO
C.S.A.H. NO. 42
1 150TH STREET WEST I
N
�;�s1Te PLAN
t OPTION N 1' 10' -0�
J (AVj Cn T W P L,
rz-f--� �5 c o PJ
ARCHITECTURAL
- - -�-- -J CONSORTIUM LLC,
901 NaN TMO SnN 9ulq ]N 612436Jp90
tMnnwpW4, 641155401 Fa 912994 -8960
95 LaRS RETAIL
i 11,650 SF C�
..
REST
6.500 SF
RETAIL
1 12,000 SF
REST
4.000 SF
r p v .we
°:...e. - '.ww w..
19 ROSEMOUNT
9 CROSSING
n 2�oossF 1 - STEINER
DEVELOPMENT
OSOY O 3!
ROSEMOUNT, MN
I 1 / 54,350 SF TOTAL
1 295 STALLS
- - POND c 5.411000 RATIO
_ SITE PLAN
OPTION F -1
SCALE: 1" -40' -0"
C.S.A.N. N0. 42
- 1 1SOTN STREET WEST 1
��ITE PLAN
A1.0F -1
xx
2 Architectural Consortium, LLC 2004
L
J
Excerpt from the regular Planning Commission Meeting 07/14/04
Public Hearing:
5A. CASE 04 -38 -CON Steiner Development Rosemount Commons - Concept Plan
Approval
Called to order by Chair Messner. City Planner Pearson,reintroduced_the plan for a seven
plus acre development on the northwest corner of Highway 3 and County Road 42,
continued from the June 22, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting. The recommendation
of the planning department, as was stated by Pearson, was to forward the Concept Plan
for Rosemount Commons to the City Council with conditions.
The original concept plan introduced June 22, 2004, included an ALDI grocery store, a
12,000 square foot multiple retail tenant strip building, a 13,650 square foot multiple
retail tenant strip building and two stand -alone restaurants. Access to the site would be
from Cambrian Avenue. Staff recommended that Camero Lane be connected to
Cambrian Avenue but disconnected from Highway 3.- A pond was proposed for the
southeasterly corner to hold storm water runoff.
Pearson introduced the following plan modifications received this evening for
consideration in the Commission's decision regarding the application received from
Steiner Development for a commercial development now renamed, "Rosemount
Crossing." Pearson introduced the following plan modifications: six buildings,
elimination of the pond, revised circulation design, the addition of a 4,000 sq. ft. bank
with drive through, and an increase in parking spaces to 271.
Pearson summarized by reminding the Planning Commission that this was a concept plan
and the fine details of the development would come to fruition in the final stages of the
development process. Further, he expressed his support of the approval of the plan and
the desire to move the Steiner Concept Plan through to the City Council.
Pearson asked for any questions following his presentation, whereby, Commissioner
Powell asked for clarification on the concept level of this project, and if the Planning
Commission would get another chance to review the plan. Pearson replied by stating that
this was phase one, it was a first or concept plan only. In the course of time, if this plan
would receive Council approval, the next phase would provide detailed design including
drainage, grading, building details, landscaping and all of engineering details that make
the plan work. That would involve another public hearing with the Planning Commission
with neighborhood review and Council action. That second review phase would be
expected to address a number of the hesitations felt by the Planning Commission
members.
Anthony Aderhold, Civil Engineer was present for the City of Rosemount to address any
technical engineering questions.
Todd Johnson, 255 Kentucky Avenue South, Golden Valley Minnesota, Vice President of
Development for Steiner Development, presented the Planning Commission and
members of the Planning Department with a sixteen point plan revision. He expressed
his desire to have the Rosemount Commons plan addressed at the July, 20, 2004 City
Council Meeting as was initially discussed with the planning department. If this were
delayed to August P, 2004, it would place the project in a bad place increasing costs and
creating further cuts.
Further, he introduced ideas that addressed issues presented at the June 22, 2004 planning
commission meeting: he reconfigured the drive -thrus and based on discussion with
Dakota County, he chopped 40 feet off the south side of the plan.
His vision was to "Create a Sense of Place ", a main - street theme that would draw
customers with its old world charm, pulling on the current City of Rosemount's'main
street. The theme would be pulled through an undulation of colors and ornamental
features such as building awnings that would create an ambience concurrent with his
vision.
Kathy Anderson, President of Architectural Consortium, was present to answer questions
and to present conceptual plans for the development. She introduced concept plan
details, including a three lane - access drive from Highway 3 with screening landscaping
and the trail connection requested by the City. Her plans also included further detail on
landscape buffering, pedestrian walkways for all of the buildings and response to staff
recommendations for boulevard trees.
Commissioners expressed concerns with the plan revisions. They felt they did not have
enough time to make a good decision on, the issue based on the new information that was
distributed to them for review tonight.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing.
Ron Doyle, 15000 Camfield Circle, expressed concern with pedestrian traffic on his
private property. He wished for a barrier of some sort to shield his property from
increased public drawn in by this new development.
Pearson responded to his concern with a brief overview of the building orientation and
the vegetative screening of landscaping, intended to provide shielding to private property.
Commissioner Zurn motioned to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner
Powell.
Asked for further questions, Commissioner Zurn, opened with the issue of time. He felt
they were not given enough time to make a proper decision and to review the sixteen -
point plan presented to them by Steiner this evening.
Pearson explained that staff was comfortable with forwarding the plan as included in the
agenda packet to the City Council with conditions. The revision as presented this
evening was a step forward in responding to the conditions, but further refinement would
be expected prior to Council approval. The significant issues of the concept have been
resolved, and there were minor issues that could be resolved via the conditions. Pearson
went on to explain limitations of staff support for setback variances along County Road
42 and Highway 3.
MOTION by Messner to carry CASE 04 -38 -CON Steiner Development
Rosemount Commons to the City Council. Second by Schultz. Commissioner
Powell requested discussion, adding language to recommended condition #11B,
entering into an agreement with the City for the private drainage system on
private property (the parking lot and western setback area).
Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell. Nays: None. Motion
carried.
Still at issue at motion close, as requested by the applicant Johnson, was the date that
Steiner would present before the City Council. Based on the continuation of the case to a
second Planning Commission meeting, discussion occurred as to whether they would
appear before the City Council on the initially scheduled date of July 20 2004, or would
the date be pushed back to August 3, 2004.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 22, 2004
PAGE 1 -
P uant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning C mmission was
held n Tuesday, June 22, 2004. Chairperson Jason Messner called the me ing to order at 7 :00
p.m. w' h Commissioners Zum, Humphrey, Schultz and Powell present lso in attendance were
City PI er Rick Pearson, Assistant City Planner Jason Lindahl, Pr ' ct Engineer Anthony
Aderhold d Recording Secretary Maryann Stoffel.
The meeting wa opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Additions and /or co rections to Agenda: None
Audience Input: None
Approval of Minutes
MOTION by Zurn to app ve th ay 25, 2004 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes. Second by Schultz. yes: Schultz, Zum, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell.
Nays: None. Motion. came
MOTION by Powell_ approve con nt agenda. Second by Humphrey.
5A. CASE 04 -3 -PUD Basic Buil rs Biscayne Acres — PUD Concept Plan
Approval ntinue the Public Hea to the July 27, 2004 meeting.
5B. CAS 4 -26 -CON Dean Johnson mes — PUD Concept Plan Approval
Col mue Public Hearing to the July 2 004 meeting.
5C. SE 04 -21 -FP Rosewood Village See o d Addition — Final Plat Revision —
he final plat previously reviewed and reco ended for approval has been
revised.
A es: Zum, Messner, Humphrey „Powell, and Schultz. s: None. Motion carried.
Public Hearing:
6A. CASE 04 -38 -CON Steiner Development Rosemount Commons — Concept Plan
Approval
City Planner Pearson apprised the Commission regarding the application received from Steiner
Development for commercial development on the northwest corner of Highway 3 and County
Road 42.
Mr. Pearson indicated staff had received a revised plan for the project but there was insufficient
time to complete the staff review prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The revised plan
was distributed to Commission Members. Staff recommended allowing for public comment but
to continue the Public Hearing to July, 14, 2004 to allow, time for Staff to complete their plan
review.
The concept plan included an ALDI grocery store, a 12,000 square foot multiple retail tenant
strip building, a 13,650 square foot multiple retail tenant strip building and two stand -alone
restaurants. Access to the site would be from Cambrian Avenue. Staff recommended that
Camero Lane be connected to Cambrian Avenue but disconnected.from Highway 3. A pond was
proposed,for the southeasterly corner to hold storm water runoff.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 22, 2004
PAGE 2
Todd Johnson, 255 Kentucky Avenue South, Golden Valley Minnesota, Vice President of
Development for Steiner Development, was here to answer questions regarding changes to the
original plan, express interest in the planning process and address neighborhood concerns. Mr.
Johnson corrected the record by stating the name should be Rosemount Crossing; and Steiner
Development holds the purchase agreement for the property. ALDI's, the anchor for the project,
would have a lease agreement.
Kathy Anderson, President of Architectural Consortium, was present to answer questions and to
present conceptual plans for the development.
Commissioners expressed concerns with access to the site, handicap parking, pedestrian traffic,
underground storm water runoff, deliveries for the grocery store, and hours of operation.
Jessie Anesi, representing ALDI, stated there are no outside vendors to their stores. Everything
they sell comes from their own warehouse. Mr. Anesi estimated only one truck per day for
deliveries. The hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
ALDI's would be closed on Sundays.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing.
Jerry Fluegal, Cambrian Ave, expressed concern with in and out traffic and lights shining on his
property:
Jim Plat, asked for clarification regarding the changes to Cambrian Avenue.
Kathy Anderson stated Cambrian Avenue would be looped with Camero Avenue and access to
Highway 3 via Cambrian Avenue would be cut off.
Dick Knights, 14976 Camfield Circle, expressed concern with ponding and storm water runoff.
Mr. Knights stated with heavy rain the storm water backs up to Canada Avenue and north,
significantly, up Camfield Circle.
Ron Doyle, 15000 Camfield Circle, expressed concern with storm water runoff. Mr. Doyle
presented a video showing flooding of properties /streets /open space during and after a rain.
Kelly Snyder, 14800 Camero Lane, expressed concern with the proposed configuration of the
existing streets. Ms. Snyder preferred to have the streets configured as cul- de- sacs.
Mr. Johnson responded the fire code warranted a different configuration. -
Mr. Pearson responded the street configuration was part of staff s and the Fire Marshal's
recommendation. The construction of two cul -de -sacs would result in two cul -de -sacs that are
much longer than the 700 foot standard and wouldn't serve the purpose of linkages. They would
be two dead ends forcing emergency vehicles to turn around or back up. By connecting the
streets the traffic could push through in either direction with one outlet to 147` Street.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 22, 2004
PAGE 3
Donna Hanks, 14775 Cambrian Ave, expressed concern with speeding traffic flow patterns in the
neighborhood.
Eric Edmund, Camero Lane, questioned the need for another grocery store. Mr. Edmund
expressed a preference for a cul -de- sac:
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Motion withdrawn by maker.
MOTION by Messner to continue the Public Hearing to July 14, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Second by Powell. Ayes: Messner, Humphrey, Powell, Schultz, and Zurn. Nays: None.
Motion carried.
Commissioner. Powell expressed his support for the loop connection of Camero Lane and
Camfield Circle.
CASE 04 -39 -FP and CASE 04- 41 -AMD CPDC Evermoor Innisfree "a Addition Final
lat and Minor PUD Amendment
Assistan Tanner Lindahl reviewed the request from Contractor Pro sties Development
Company ( DC) for a minor PUD amendment and final plat for vermoor Innisfree 2 "a
Addition. Th roperty is located north of Evermoor Parkway d east of Diamond Path. The
original plat sho ed two twin homes. The applicant request final plat approval for 3 detached
townhome lots whi would be consistent with property de eloped on the south side of
Evermoor Parkway.
Areas of concern included es of housing units, a access to the site.
David Hempel, Project Manage for CPDC, w resent to respond to the areas of concern. The
housing style will be similar to th ousing to ated on the south side of Evermoor Parkway.
Access to the site would be a shared vew y that would be courtyard in appearance with cross
easements to each unit.
Chairperson Messner opened the pu is he ' g. There were no public comments.
MOTION by Powell to ose the Public earing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Humphrey,
Powell, Schultz, Z and Messner. Nays: one. Motion carried.
MOTION by H phrey to recommend the Cit o_uncil approve the final plat and
Planned Unit velopment (PUD) for Evermoor isfree 2nd Addition subject to the 3
conditions o lined in the staff report with the deletio of condition four related to park
dedicatio ees. The three conditions are:
1. Execution of the Subdivision Development A eement for Evermoor
Innisfree 2 "a Addition.
3
Steiner
r
L
ARCHITECTURAL
CONSORTIUM L.L.C.
L 901 Nath TNN Strati, SUg82M 612J%1090
�� � MlixMywNS, BW SSN11 Fav 812RObB9B0
Steiner
I �A S I Development, Inc.
a �
fm REST
6,500 SF
Testy
RETAIL i
13.000 SP '
E
BANK/RETAIL
4.000 SP
e sy.w
w I I I I I ROSEMOUNT
`
REST CROSSING
Boa ans
3,300SP ° STEINER
1 1 1 1 � , - I �1-- 1 1 f f1' ��
DEVELOPMENT
GROCERY �P� - �� - I U 3� ,
.000 sf
ROSEMOUNT, MN
r � 50,700 SF TOTAL
271 STALLS
POND ,P O 5.311000 RATIO
p y- SITE PLAN
- - OPTION H
B SCALE: 1"- 40'-0"
-- -- F
O.S.A3L NO. 42 -
1 1SOTH STREET WEST 1
ALOH
xx
Architectural Cnnenr, I 1 C 7nnd
J
F
�I
�i
€F
El
j
un p'
grad
}
Lj
t
,4q's »un' vim
»r
a f
_.,
c
M
— iii
- C O U N T Y
Transportation Department June 28, 2004
Mark J. Krebsbach, P.E.
Transportation Director/
County Engineer
.Rick Pearson
Dakota County City of Rosemount
Western Service Center 2875 145 Street
14456 d Fl oor e Avenue
3rd Fl Rosemount , MN 55068 -4997
Apple Valley, MN 55124-8579
952.891.7100 Re: County Road Plantings at Rosemount Crossings
Fax 952.891.7127
vrww.co.dakota.mn.us Dear Mr. Pearson,
Dakota County has no issues with small plantings that are planned for the
CASH 42 frontage in front the new Rosemount Crossings development. I
have talked with Todd Johnson and explained to him that as long as the
plants were small bushes or flowering plants they would be ok. The
county would not allow trees, planters or any other objects that are solid
enough to cause damage to a vehicle if impacted. No permit will be issued
until a landscaping plan is submitted to and reviewed by the County staff
first.
Sincerely,
Gordon `Butch" McConnell
Dakota County Transportation Department
Prnrted on regded paper
.with 30% postconsumer waste.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNrrY EMPLOYE0.
Pearson,Rick
From: Zech, Dave [Dave.Zech @CO. DAKOTA. M N. US]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 2:41 PM
To: Pearson,Rick
Cc: Tollefson, Todd; Krebsbach, Mark
Subject: Rosemount Commons
Rick, Thank you for sending the concept plan for review. The plan will be reviewed by the
Dakota County Plat Commission on June 14, 2004, at the 9 AM meeting at the Western Service
Center in Apple Valley. City staff and /or the developer's representatives are welcome to
attend.` Review comments will be mailed to the City soon after the Plat Commission
meeting. The development conforms with the County's access spacing guidelines by showing
no access to CSAH 42. 2025 traffic on CSAH 42 warrants 6-traffic lanes. The County's
right of way needs for a 6 -lane road is 200 feet of width, so the plat should dedicate 100
feet of right of way for CSAH 42 measured from the center of the existing road. The Plat
Commission may have other 'comments for the City after reviewing the concept plan on the
14th. Dave Zech
1
7
i
d �
�
3
LA
" off
L
O
ZA
"�,
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
2875 145TH STREET WEST
ROSEMOUNT, MN 55066 -4997
(651) -523 -4411
DAKOTA COUNTY
1560 -1590 HWY. 55
HASTINGS, MN 55033
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
MEARS PARK CENTER -
230 5TH STREET EAST
ST. PAUL. MN 55101.
Mn /DOT
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
395 JOHN IRELAND BOULEVARD
ST. PAUL. MN 55155.
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED
1560 -1590 HWY. 55
HASTINGS. MN 55033
(852)- 891 -7011
BA
Tw a nytlrmt — CdnWll Are. fle . 9D09] Mel (CRy Y Rpranwnt Datum)
RRYleloea
n
w e
b
0 A0 en
SCNE n .FELT
LEnEtiD
- Dmotn x« Monimmt set
Omoln xw ANN.— Feuntl
- 0- Daum
maw BRUM1axr. snare
gnaw emoek sasa[e
__ -_ - ppNptpp Septay Serer
Ram Lwr
- bnatw QN--
ewmek
_. _ Dawtw Untlm GpuM E"Nne live
- - -- pneln LA Gemtl TekpM1pne Li «t
__ -_- Dmsfn Owe YNatl E4aNr
. - Ornatn WW Fm«
Omptw YRN Pm«
- Gnaw GNS Aw rwu.r
T - O—a nm Y,Yrra
—
w Oats P a
0 - D '- Lltul Pok
O - R- srps.ry sw•r x.pwe
e - D«,aat storN a.wr Naaae
- Derotet CetM Doty,
Donates y
— t Cad SrCtfpn
Oenotrt tNpit Yser
�- bwtn sal na Emakn
- - P+RE-- Daetrt PprNYp setBpeN LMe
MY —_ Oawbt luYBa9 Setbe[H Llnr
- groin Pep
- Dman UIaIY Pak
e - Drvwn. 91
/ - Dewln Eanbp ENreUen Conlan.lM
- Denaee Eeklkq Spal EWakn
SOMND
Ne CRY .1 Rewppmt W AN«Itl tna IM *mkal Prwe�tY b -,-"y
$npo[r rewyrrNen4 a E tai Mims o m IN. q blgmeNOn o by Nr
RamkR Dwp— of. iM CA, a Raeemrunt
MAY 18 [004 D
By
WARNING
THE CONTRACTOR IUALL CONTACT NL PLOW MOTES
FOR LOCATIONS 0! ALL UMDERONOUNO WIRES. CABLES.
CONOURS. _t. AUNHOLES. —ES. OR OTHER OUR=
STRUCTURES BEFORE O"G " 8E — REPAIR OR
REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING
CONSTRUETION AT NO COST TO 01mER.
"• :: "m °"° " d.�:"" ""°°"" ° d
ll h
Scne & Masen In
ar entlaW 6gber War . fiRea - Cbrt P.4- NtnwE000g1;
sipY1i° " 0 ' s ""'t 0 'p"'"'"D STEINER DEVELOPMENT, INC. Rosemount Commons sna/o4.
sol T Uns • EnvlrrmurrEY S•rvlw ReeeseYr4 Y
ar RegNa mYwenaerkW,aa..�1.aR+Ye� 3610 COUNTY ROAD 101
RRR oRR �> am WAYZATA, MN 56391 Existing Conditions Plan
at
. SMI NunWr. 00771 -WO
o F
>m q � o � ;y9 zro T.
. zig f� nary
4
gg tAOY K �i �Xf�JO
33 s
s b L= _ = a"zz
p �� F •� u' a m
.
a Nn y
g 615.40
i�
t
CJ
p F i T
w
o m I —
m �, I
p m I s
its f
I�
al
g o L
ig
ti
a
Fes_
O O
uo
qcm
qam
l e -i4lt
L
r
3 �
L hc
Steiner
Development, Inc.
3610 County Road 101
Wayzata MN (952)473-5650 Fax U4
(952)4737O58 '�,��( �
ey
May 18, 2004 -
Rosemount Commons
Concept Plan Submittal
Project Narrative
Rosemount is a rapidly growing community with a diverse citizenry and employment base.
The Northwest comer of the main intersection of town, County Road 42 and MN Hwy 3,
provides an ideal location to serve the daily needs of the residents and workers in the
community. Many site development challenges have presented themselves in the path to
creating a retail plan that functions for both the city and for private interests. With this in
mind, Steiner Development has chosen to submit this application for city approvals under the
two -step PUD process. The enclosed concept plan incorporates -the findings of the
developer, the input of the retail community, and the input from the Rosemount city staff.
Steiner Development is proposing an Aldi's Food anchored neighborhood retail center. The
nature of the development would be a gathering place that provides the basic needs of the
people in the area. A full service restaurant with liquor service has been planned for the
entrance corner. A coffee shop with a drive through lane is further South along the MN Hwy
3 frontage, with extra space for a sandwich shop as well. A medium sized multi -tenant retail
buildings housing small shops such as a dry cleaner, craft store, hair salon, bank, financial
services, electronics, casual restaurants, and other conveniences runs along the North and
West borders of the property.
From the community's standpoint, Rosemount Commons will be inviting gathering place
with both indoor and outdoor areas that create "sense of place ". Areas such as the corner
feature at the crossroads of Rosemount, Co Rd 42 & Hwy 3, and the various walkways,
restaurants, and coffee shop, present opportunities to see your neighbor in a setting that is
conducive to conversation. Strong walkway connections throughout the site and into the
downtown area promote the full enjoyment of this neighborhood retail center. Our
comprehensive guidelines will ensure high quality architecture and detailing that will blend
well with the existing downtown context.
ROSEMOUNT RETAiL
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
ARCHITECTURAL CONSORTIUM LLC
Z004
L� y
The overall design concept is to create a shopping center district that is co es
planning to allow flexibility of mixed -use of building types. - The architecture should
maintain a uniform character and reflect a style that has a sense of permanence and
longevity. The site serves as a transition from automobile oriented uses to the urban
character of downtown
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
BUILDING ORIENTATION
• Site planning concept of multiple buildings
with an emphasis on pedestrian connections
through the site and in front of storefronts. -...
The comer sites at the main entry at `
Cambrian and the intersection of County r
Road 42 and 3 should incorporate site
amenities such as plazas, monument signs,
or enhanced landscape features.
• The orientation of buildings should take
advantage of available view sheds of fixture
development sites where possible:
• Green area is aggregate throughout site to provide 25%
* 'Fronts of buildings should orient toward major roadways where feasible and
service areas of major anchor tenants shall orient to the rear or sides of the
buildings where feasible
• Buildings should be located adjacent to roadways where feasible.
BUILDING DESIGN
BUILDING MASS
• Varying scale of buildings should be
encouraged.
Varying Parapets to create interest in
design styles shall be encouraged. R_+
• Large areas of blank wall surface facing r
street frontage is discouraged.
FACADE DESIGN
• Colorful canopies, and accents should be
encouraged.
• Architectural character will be consistent with all buildings within master plan.
• A variety of storefront designs are encouraged in order to enhance the pedestrian
shopping experience.
• Masonry detailing such as soldier coursing, or patterning shall be encouraged.
• Building character shall reflect the attractive and pleasant nature of the desired
shopping and dining experience.
• Thematic decorations are limited to main front entries only.
• The use of cornices, ornamental lights, and other architectural details should be
encouraged.
BUILDING AIAT'ERIALS
• Materials shall be selected for suitability to
the type of buildings and the design in which
they are used. Building walls should be .
STARBUCKS
finished in aesthetically acceptable tones and COFFEE i:
colors, complement the tones and colors of
neighboring buildings. A rich, reddish brick
color should predominate.
• Materials shall be a durable quality.
• Exterior wall treatments such as brick,
natural stone, decorative concrete block,
stucco and architectural metal panels shall be encouraged.
• All wood treatment shall be painted and weather proofed.
A minimum of 25% of the facade shall be treated with the finished masonry
building material or glass.
• Colors and specifications of masonry and stucco colors should be consistent
throughout P.U.D.
• Blank single masonry walls must consist of 25 % of decorative masonry variation
in color, texture or surface.
• Rear of buildings shall be rockface block in a color to match predominant brick
color.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
• Canopies shall be encouraged at entry ways.
• Window frame, material and color to
complement architectural style and be
consistent in color throughout development.
• Window openings may be modulated to
scale and proportion complementary to the
architectural style. Maximize storefront
opportunities to avoid long expanses of "
blank wails at street fronts.
• A minimum eight feet clear space shall be
provided from sidewalk elevation to the lowest point of a canopy and/or
suspended sign.
• Window frames shall be constructed of prefinished metal.
• Window and doors shall be glazed in clear glass. Mirrored windows shall be
discouraged
SCREENING
• Loading areas, mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on ground, root or
building shall be screened from public view with materials similar to the adjacent
building material, or landscaping.
FRANCHISE DESIGN
• Franchise design shall utilize materials, scale and style of these architectural
standard guidelines, yet maintain corporate identity.
LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT
PLANTING
• Plant material is to be utilized within the master
plan area as an aid to provide continuity within the
area and to provide a recognized definition of its
boundaries.
• Overstory: - street trees will be utilized along all
external and internal roadways placement as to not
block visibility of commercial signage.
o Unity of design shall be achieved by repetition of
certain plant varieties and other streetscape
materials and by correlation with adjacent
development.
• Entry points into the site are to be significantly
landscaped and are to be designed with a common
theme.
• Plant material is to be utilized as a screening element for parking and building
utility areas.
• Plant materials are to be utilized within parking lot islands, grouped massing of
landscape encouraged in parking lots versus island planting to maximize
landscape impact and allow functional snow removal and storage. Areas devoted
to parking should demonstrate proof of parking.
• All loading service, utility and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from
public roads. When natural materials are used as a screen, the screen shall
achieve 75% capacity year round.
• Preservation of natural areas are encouraged where possible.
• Plant material shall be selected in regard to its interesting structure, texture, color,
seasonal interest and its ultimate growth characteristics.
• Where building sites limit planting, the placement of plant materials in planters or
within paved areas is encouraged.
STREETSCAP E
• Wrought iron benches, trash and ashtrays should be
of a color and style compatible with the
architecture.
• Sidewalks in front of retail shops should
incorporate planting beds or planters up against
blank wall areas.
• Ornamental pedestrian light fixtures should be of a
color and design compatible with the established
city streetscape.
PARKING -
• When determined appropriate, commercial buildings are to accommodate
bicyclelmotorcycle parking areas and bike rack.
• Cross parking between sites is encouraged.
• Parking shown, as proof of parking cannot count as green area calculation.
Parking stalls to be 9' x 18', drive aisles to be 24' (60' bay spacing).
• Parking lot layout should include clear, direct traffic movement throughout site.
LIGHTING
• Lighting should provide continuity and consistency
throughout the area. All parldng lot lights shall be
uniform in style, color and height maximum pole
height of 40' in parking areas.
• Exterior wall lighting shall be encouraged to
enhance the building design and the adjoining
landscape.
• Lighting styles and building fixtures shall be of a
design and size compatible with the building and
adjacent areas. Ornamental lighting should be
encouraged.
• Excessive brightness shall be avoided.
SIGNAGE
• All signage must meet existing code
standards. Signs not allowed:
Rooftop signage
Signs painted on building
Electronic reader boards
Flashing or motion signs
Pole signs
• Signage must maintain a consistent metal
surround color throughout P.U.D.
• Pylon signs should be consistent in height
and square footage (30' high, 100 sq. ft.).
• Base of pylons must be of masonry brick to match buildings, and reflect
architectural character and detailing.
• Building signage should not overpower architectural character, but serve as
identity.
• Low entry monuments not to exceed 8' may be placed at major entries for
identification of center.
• Wall signage should not exceed 8% of the building elevation.
• Wail signage is allowed on any facade facing public R.O.W.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 2, 2004
TO: Rick Pearson, City Planner
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Andy Brotzler, City Engineer
Anthony Aderhold,' Project Engineer
'Jason Lindahl, Assistant City Planner
Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator
FROM: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation
RE: Rosemount Commons Concept Plan
After reviewing the plans submitted for the Rosemount Commons Development, the Parks and
Recreation Department is submitting the following comments:
A. Parks dedication fees should be paid in the amount of $64,710 (10 % of 7.19 acres x
$90,000). This fee is based on 2004 Fee Policy and the final plat being platted in 2004.
2. A trail connection from Camfield Park to Highway 3 should be identified in plan.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 2004
TO: Planning
FROM: Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Rosemount Commons Concept Plan
The primary issues from the police perspective on this issue are related to traffic flow,
both accessing Highway 3'and the spillover of traffic into the residential area to the north
of the proposed development:
I. ,Cambrian Avenue should be widened to allow for turn lanes to be installed. A
traffic study or recommendation from engineering will presumably fully
address this-issue, but it appears that at a minimum Cambrian should be
expanded to three lanes. This will allow for a left turn lane for accessing the
site and to exit onto Highway 3. Without the. expansion of Cambrian Avenue,
it is believed that traffic will backup into the lot during the busiest times of
businesses in the development.
2. Traffic issues on Cambrian Avenue north of the development must be
addressed. This is a residential street and steps should be taken to mitigate the
impact to residents from the traffic that will be generated by the proposed
development. Options to consider should include:
• Closing off Cambrian Avenue with culde sac.
• Allowing access to the proposed site from Cambrian for traffic
southbound on Cambrian, but prevent any traffic to travel northbound
from the development onto Cambrian.
Finally, the plan does include landscape for screening on the west side. The landscaping
should be extensive to reduce noise, light and litter from the development impacting the
residential neighborhood to the west.
4
'::
E
1
f � y
S
i
mm
0
901 North Third Street Suite 220 612.4364030
Minrtmpolis, MN 55401 Fey( 6124392 -9960
I>) - ..___--------- . -. - -__ .Steiner
Development, Inc.
�7 � e I » »cw.lwm.rvn„at�.a,as9tr
1 \ PATIO I e < tmmea -.e marsae
.1 I C
I
' 4'
~ �J�
\. 2 I \
REST
c� 2 lJ NU 6,500 SF tab t f
r I
� „ I
RETAIL I f f
22.400 SF s /
r\
95 CARS 36 CARS.
/
4 D — M - u
El
r,aS tl ma Or uritlar dreGt
CJ i /� I tKrcty cattily k�at thb ptcn, fpacN'rotlory Or report
u1 -- ---------- - ----- / / o.a ovaW4LvsriwdA&hxact.aa tM
V' PATIO I_ \ ----------- - - - - -- PATIO i i J rr:c.aNV51t fM..,a.xa.
to t ¢
I I - J F vacs: t.lwr.. •
A
Q TRUCK
04- 1019 -OI
o / e
N j
01/21/04
— SCREEN i
1 WALL
%
c«�cKEa tar.
ROSEMOUNT
v
/
- WTTFFFF 4r
CROSSING
107 CARS PATIO > ;
- STEINER
t4
3
DEVELOPMENT
� 20
n
GROCERY
i
1 5,000 SF
o �
ROSEMOUNT, MN
/ z
' I L 1 48,100 SF TOTAL
" C311
POND i �� 0 5.0 /1000 L RATIO
i
SITE PLAN
OPTION L
SCALE: 1" = 40' -0"
1 150TH STREET WEST 1
E_' —
---- _ - - --- /L
----------
C.S.A.H. NO. 42
- -_ —.— — _---- �.------- �__ —�. _. - --
i
ti
i_
I
V)
PRO.PGT NU•IDER:
04- 1019 -OI
MIN= DATE.
01/21/04
DRANQI ,3Y:
%
c«�cKEa tar.
I:A
c�
siT�PUw A1.OL
i
OPTION L 1" � a0' -0'
C
Architectural Consortium. LLC. 2004